Eat My Protest
By: Eddie Clements
Over-the-top protests by gays arising from rejection of same-sex marriage, especially Proposition 8 in California, has made conservative opinion all a-twitter with disgust. My personal favorite comment of type from the straight-faced suits on Fox News is on the order of â€œcouldnâ€™t they have at least waited a while? I mean, why so soon?â€ HELLO! You expect rational behavior from the irrational? Do you think they embarrass themselves by this? They are beyond embarrassment.
Leftist bloggers inflame the internet with the fire of vengeance, calling for boycotts, picketing or burning down churches, and condemnation upon those who chose to exercise their right of free speech. How dare proponents of tradition express it!
May we demure and call for more protests, more nut-blogs. Militant activists on the unhinged left openly demonstrate their character and inner darkness, reinforced by left-wing opinion, or absence of opinion, in the media which refuses to condemn such acts. Imagine if the situation was reversed and traditionalists knocked signs from hands of elderly gay ladies. The New York Times, among others, would be calling for suspending habeas corpus, locking up Christian protestors and throwing away the key. Clearly hatred of Christianity is on full display, without a cross word to be said by the drive-by media. Your freedom to express Christianity is in imminent danger; other freedoms â€œguaranteedâ€ by the First Amendment are soon to follow.
The McCain presidential campaign failed in its duty to point out what was in store for the nation should the left attain power. Now the left is doing a better job of it than the Republican Party. The left is its own worst enemy, and Republicans had better stand at ready to exploit it, and exploit the leftist tendency toward self-destruction arising from their own self-loathing. These displays are the best means of showing more â€œcentristâ€ voters exactly why you canâ€™t let whack-jobs vote in a president.
But I digress. What are the gays thinking? â€œLetâ€™s disrupt a church service in Michigan by intimate display, shouting political slogans, and throwing leaflets in the air. Thatâ€™ll show the congregation how neat we are and persuade them to support our cause!â€ Do they actually expect the congregation, probably absorbed in thought by a just-completed choral presentation, to mentally and emotionally shift gears into thinking â€œYou know, the behavior of these obvious nutcases proves beyond a reasonable doubt that being gay is OKâ€? This behavior by a few miscreants may be what the psychologists call acting out. Not sure of that, but it is definitely some kind of psycho-something. These are the people trying to convince us they are â€œnormalâ€ despite their unfortunate failings. Good luck with that.
As the above musings suggest, there is something at work here that doesnâ€™t add up. Whatever the liberals, or progressives, call their organizing â€œprinciplesâ€ are called into question by their behavior, such as with the gays, or their ignoring of disruptive behavior, such as with the big media downplaying the hatred of Christianity being displayed by gays in these protests. They are either always acting out or in denial of acting out. As such, their whole being is a conglomeration of contradiction and malediction.
The current president-elect does not so much personify these traits as he uses them to his political advantage. Not that the name of the president is so important; the problem is leftist Democrat politicians. The leftist belief system accepts the illusion of normality despite demonstrably abnormal behavior. Thus a system of redistribution can be proposed though such systems have never worked in large, non-homogeneous populations in practice according to empirical evidence. Rules of evidence should be of primary importance to a legal mind; in pursuit of unrealistic goals ignoring evidence is philosophically consistent to the liberals. Man will be made into what he should be, not accepted for what he is.
This is what seems to be at the root of the protests. A formal proposition is advanced, placed on a ballot and voted on. The gays probably thought this was a cinch, especially in California, a place where people are so enlightened! When the vote went against them, gays erupted with indignation. They should be free to define marriage any way they want! Itâ€™s a right! Itâ€™s a free country; we shouldnâ€™t have even had to vote!
People participating in social systems that have worked for eons are not so easily swayed. Re-defining a system that is rooted in two fundamental instincts, one of which is reproduction, does not yield to political argument. Why? Because man is what he is, not what he should be. Humans do not reproduce from same-sex marriage, so there has never been a compelling reason to accommodate it. The reasons are therefore obvious why no culture based on homosexuality has ever survived. It is only accommodated today by the social artificial of tolerance, necessary in a large multicultural population. Gays should take a lesson from that, instead they attack a convenient target as the cause of their ills: the Mormon Church. Never mind that blacks and Hispanics contributed greatly to Prop 8â€™s victory; attacking them would be too problematic.
Like Democrat politicians exploit envy of the rich to obtain the votes of the less wealthy in order to attain power, gays exploit suspicion of arcane beliefs (meaning the non-religious donâ€™t understand them) in religions as the reason their group identity is â€œoppressed.â€ They liken this oppression to the treatment of blacks before civil rights legislation was enacted, an analogy blacks overwhelmingly reject. Blacks are just as human as everyone else and have a right to be treated accordingly, a fact which had to be codified into law and imposed by force upon Democrats(!) who controlled the South. Gays are not like everybody else; by choice or by DNA they are homosexual.
Gays are not in fact oppressed, but the public does not want homosexuality flaunted, which is probably the real reason behind the vote. Who cares what gays do â€“ in private? But who wants to see two men kissing in public? Yucch! So arenâ€™t gays just other humans? Donâ€™t they have rights? Yes, they have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, plus Constitutional guarantees, that we all have. Among these is the right to speak freely â€“ but not to shout â€œfire!â€ in a crowded theater when there is in fact no fire. No one has the right to assault those who disagree with us or behave obnoxiously.
Let me pose this question: what if there was a ballot initiative to make the minimum wage $25 an hour, and it passed. How would gays feel about people, mostly businessmen I presume, who protested that? Methinks they would say â€œeveryone has a right to a living wageâ€ and â€œthe people have spoken.â€
There are limits to what the public will accept. Gay marriage is one; â€œthe people have spoken.â€ Besides, this is all academic. Some federal judges will display the same contempt for the peoplesâ€™ wishes that Democrats and their gay constituents do and overturn Prop 8. Thatâ€™s not cynical, just a recognition that man is what he is, not what we want him to be.